Daily News

CHINA CALLING FOR NEW INTERNATIONAL SECURITY POLICY

As readers here are aware, over the past few days' blogs, we've been considering the indications of a possible major geopolitical shift at work internationally, and certainly at least in Europe and Russia, vis-a-vis the contemporary "trouble spot" of the world, the Middle East. As I've been suggesting, there seem to be indicators that Saudi Arabia is being or has been quietly moved from the "friend" column to the "fiend" or "foe" column, if not by the West in its entirety, then at least by certain great powers - France, Germany, and Russia, with quiet "indicators" of the same process being echoed by Italy and the United Kingdom - and against this backdrop one might make certain predictions, for if it is in fact occurring, then we should expect that at some point there will be growing calls to subject the Saudi regime to war crimes trials and "crimes against humanity" under the international criminal court in The Hague, and calls for the Saudi representative on the UN Human Rights commission to be handed his walking papers, and never invited back. Time will tell, of course, but if such a geopolitical realignment is under way, then one may expect these maneuvers to occur in the future in this regard, as they have in the past to regimes that have fallen out of favor.

As all this whirlwind of activity and statements has been occurring, you may not have noticed that China quietly weighed in regarding the general subject of geopolitical alignment, as indicated by this article from Russia's Sputnik, shared by Ms. K.M.:

The Chinese Foreign Ministry called on Thursday for the international community to reject NATO’s Cold War policy and create a new organization to provide world security

As the article itself suggests, the Chinese government has an almost impeccable track record of timing such statements, and I strongly suspect that in the wake of German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel's statements about Suadi Arabia, and Germany's decisions not to share intelligence with NATO ally Turkey, that China has carefully chosen this precise time to issue this call to "non-bloc-oriented" political and international security measures, for they are clearly directed at NATO, and its ultimate puppet master, Washington DC. This occurs also at the precise time that the whole subject of Islamic terrorism is one the minds of a large segment of the world's population, particularly in Europe and North America in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino murders. China, too, is confronted with a similar problem for similar reasons in its western-most provinces, and as I indicated in yesterday's "tidbit," the other colossus of the East, Japan, has dealt with the problem by simply not allowing the problem to penetrate its borders.

I suspect in China's case, however, the message and reasoning may be a bit more inscrutably byzantine, but that they boil down to an indirect attact on Washington's whole interventionist policy in the area since the first invasion of Iraq during the Gulf War, an intervention, you'll recall, made at the behest of Wahabbist Kuwait and ultimately carried out with the cooperation of Whabbist Saudi Arabia. For the moment, China's interests lie in the stability of the region, and for a very simple reason: its energy imports are dependent on it. Hence China has relatively cordial relations with Iran, and these relations, and its desire for stability in the region, will last until its energy deals with Russia actually take shape in the form of real pipelines from Siberia to China. Once that is in place, China's tune will change.

China has already indicated its support for the basic stance taken by Mr. Putin's Russia vis-a-vis its intervention in Syria at the behest of the Assad government in Damascus. But more importantly, China has just completed a base at in northeast Africa at the southern tip of the Red Sea... a base conveniently close to you-know-who.

So what's China's "subtle message" to Washington, and to you-know-who? I suggest, given its peculiar timing, that it's also directed at Europe, with which it conducts such extensive trade, and the message is "keep right on doing what you're doing, i.e., keep right on rethinking the whole NATO structure and your relationship with Washington and its toadies in you-know-where." Translated, that message also means, "you may continue to lop off heads and chop off hands in your own country, but at the first instance to attempt to export it, particularly here, by any means covert, religious, or otherwise, and it will be considered a violation of international law." The message is one that they will understand fully in Tokyo and Taipei, and which, I suspect, the principals in those capitals will agree with(bringing yet another possible perspective to the table by which to evaluate Mr. Abe's rearmament of Japan). The message was understood long ago in Jakarta and Rangoon. Even Tehran seems to "get it" to some degree.

And they have that base at the southern end of the Red Sea to reinforce the point. And China has cruise missiles too...

See you on the flip side...

12 thoughts on “CHINA CALLING FOR NEW INTERNATIONAL SECURITY POLICY”

  1. China-related themes figure in Matt Herring’s cover artwork for “The Economist”. Note that there is a large size version of the illustration, of which the left half is used in the English-language edition, while Chinese and Japanese language covers use a different, Asian-oriented selection of the elements. There is a lot of ranting on the web about alleged predictions, but here is a fairly sober attempt to interpret the symbolism:
    https://youtu.be/3bNsJUJwHwE

    1. Robert Barricklow

      Interesting Dana.
      I was disappointed in his Bill Clinton explanation, mentioning his sexual escapades, rather than his signing of the infamous Telecommunications Act, the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act, and his other despicable signature Acts.

    2. How about the tiny creature with a briefcase, horns and goat feet, their true selves are now apparent and they don’t even care to hide anymore.
      I do predictive programming but on positives. That’s why MSN promotes fear and false flags, to fog brains up where the people can’t think right.

  2. Yep, China has been very quiet over the middle east crisis, and you have to hand it to them for doing so. You can bet that there has been a lot of swapping of information between China and Russia and also very quietly. So now what, well if TPTB want a scape goat, then all eyes are on Saudi Arabia, those beheading dudes may have run out of friends and are going to be dropped like a hot potato. I also like the fact that Russia is doing everything by the book, going through the UN, and dotting all the I’s. It’s going to be interesting to see if China will join in the ISIS game, AND if there appears ANY muslim troubles IN CHINA, then they will take no prisoners on their home turf.
    Imagine China having an Islamic problem, and if it’s found out that it has been sponsored by the west, then it will be snuffed out very quickly, the Chinese don’t mess around on home turf.

  3. “You see, something’s going to happen…something wonderful…it’s all very clear to me now. The whole thing. It’s wonderful.” – 2001

    Next on the menu: Iranian Surprise a la Mode. Shia Islam poses the greatest existential obstacle to the “New Order”, and the complete annihilation of Iran is inevitable. An atomic-equipped Iran poses a real threat, it isn’t theater, but in order to justifiably vaporize this chunk of the orient, the world needs to see this threat as intended; the Iranians were moving too quickly and so politics went into overdrive to bring them back to the appointed schedule. They are gradually being encircled, and when the time is ripe they’ll be allowed to build their nukes, provoked into using them, and subsequently annihilated.

  4. The world is tired of our War w/o End Amen foreign policies and the eternal chaos we continue to spawn in the Middle East. The International MIC cares only that ordinance is being expended.. Expect other countries to echo and act on China’s words. The world had enough of our insanity, violence for violence’s sake.

    The House of Saud has never been the Populace of the U S’s friend. They exist to enrich the PTB. They were allegedly implicated in 911 and FedGov.Inc attacked Iraq.. This is akin to the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor and the US attacking Taiwan. The cognitive malfunctions regarding our relationships in the Middle East are too numerous to mention. Let’s not forget, the House of Saud perpetuates slavery of all kinds and other uncivilized institutionalized bad habits. That the US has ignored for years.

    There is an argument to be made that the Saudis have purchased at least two US presidents outright. I have pics of Bush II holding hands and skipping with Saudi royalty in the Rose Garden and our current Prez, could not bow low enough before them.. I would take this as a clue, they wield a great deal of undo influence.

  5. What’s new you seem to forget what was done to the Americas and Australia. The turning of those continents into garbage dumps for the last five hundred years. And foreign invasion of Europe is centuries old Roman upper class were complaining about this since the days of the Roman Republic. China wants a end to barbarians are us sick game of chicken and I dare you and are awaking from their drug out haze of the last hundred fifty years and yes NATO must go.

    1. Marcos this dumping is especially true of the Horn of Africa, where the sea has become a dumping ground for nuclear waste.

  6. This is a good move by China , keep out the planned refugee crisis fostered by NATO and the other globalists , hopefully Russia and company take care of this mess in the Middle East , it’s awful what has been done to ME , people should open their eyes and understand this is a long thought out plan by Washington, the Vatican(Jesuits) and their ilk , it must be stopped for the sake of the world

  7. This base in the former French territory of Djibouti has been under discussion since 2013. It will be interesting to see just how this develops, considering that the US has just renewed a 20-year lease on its own naval facility in the tiny country (see NY Times article of 27 Nov.). If the pattern of parallel naval bases spreads, this could mean the re-thinking of centuries of imperialist maritime expansion, when dominant countries imposed their presence on host countries. But if the host country is really a sovereign state – as the imperial power involved always hastens to recall – what is to prevent that state from hosting more bases?

Comments are closed.